cp_09malibuV6:I'm not saying you're wrong, because I don't think you are, but that doesn't really negate my point that this CR test is a crock. If the two most similar vehicles in the test are 2 mpg apart, it proves how wildly unpredictable the rest of the results may be.

There is no proof here that turbo engines are worse than N/A ones. They just provided a smattering of data points with a dozen unchecked variables that I pointed out using the Kia/Hyundai twins.

XFistsClenchedX:What they proved is that a smaller, turbocharged engine isn't better than having a larger NA engine, like companies would have you believe.

The "proved" nothing except how flawed their testing is.

I don't give a damn whether turbos are helpful or not, I was just shocked at how piss poor they presented this information to back up their claim.

When a factory turbo engine, especially one tuned for 87, hits full boost it is tuned to be OMFG rich. This leads to a lot of fuel use when boost is used frequently. The N/A motor does the same thing, but to a far lesser extent.

Result? Turbo does better in EPA tests, N/A does better in the real world. Mostly every driver drives irresponsibly.

you mean.. I'm not supposed to come within 500RPM of redline and keep the gas on the floor as much as possible?

The best way to know if a turbo model compares to their competition would be to check a community fuel economy site. Its a good indicator of what the average consumer is getting, and having multiple accounts helps average the hyper milers and the lead foots. Or go buy one of each car and test each.
____________________________________2004 Mazda3 2.3 T -> 2012 Mazda3 Skyactiv GT w/tech

When a factory turbo engine, especially one tuned for 87, hits full boost it is tuned to be OMFG rich. This leads to a lot of fuel use when boost is used frequently. The N/A motor does the same thing, but to a far lesser extent.

Result? Turbo does better in EPA tests, N/A does better in the real world. Mostly every driver drives irresponsibly.

Fallen79:you mean.. I'm not supposed to come within 500RPM of redline and keep the gas on the floor as much as possible?

Now ya tell me!

When boost hits as early as it does in the Fords, it is very difficult to stay out of boost and the midrange is where detonation is most likely to occur. I don't know this for a fact but I would bet a wideband would be showing 10:1 or lower A/F in the midrange.
___________________________

-Small turbocharged engines are marketed as delivering the power of a large engine, with the fuel economy of a smaller one. That's a tempting proposition, but our testing shows these small-displacement turbos are not delivering on the promises.

-Looking at EPA fuel-economy estimates (calculated based on laboratory tests), some of these cars' turbocharged engines seem to have an advantage. But we found those results don't match the findings from our own fuel-economy tests.

Zoomin:The turbo 4 concept seems like a mistake at this point in time. It looks we have just gone from V6's that used to get 22-25mpg in the midsize segment to (4) cylinders that get 22-25.

As far as the CR credibility issue goes, the only way to find out if they are blatantly lying because they like some brands over others will be to test them ourselves and I think none of us would mind that.

HemiPoweredNBG:i still dont find CR the least bit credible but this coincides with what ive been saying. however the differences are borderline negligible in most instances. the biggest difference is the fusion and even thats not huge...

interesting on the f150 though..

lobo007:the differences between Ford's mpg in the EPA tests and CR tests are "huger" than Hyundai's differences even before the EPA adjustments.

i'm actually surprised that CR didn't just outright accuse Ford again, since they are the only make (besides the already penalized Hyundai/Kia) that consistently under delivers in both mpg and acceleration in regard to their turbos. speaking of CR, i wonder how Ford is feeling about them right now.

i never said huger so idk why you put that in quotations.. and the fusion has the biggest difference of 4 mpg between EPA and CR...
____________________Norman Byron Greenburg- westys

The Chevrolet Cruze, Hyundai Sonata Turbo and Ford Escape 2.0T all got dinged for the same troubles, though Consumer Reports has found the turbo 2.0-litre four-cylinder in the BMW 328i does deliver on its promises.

-Ford's Ecoboost engines do in fact increase fuel economy over NA engines in the same vehicle. While the Edge V6 did offer AWD in the tests, the trade-off is usually 1-2 mpg or so.

-CR's testing of the previous Fusion vs. the new one is very important here. While radically redesigned, the Fusion's transmission is a carry-over and the car has maintained similar weight. CR was able to hit 37 mpg on the hwy with the new Fusion, besting EPA estimates. The previous model with the 2.5 was only able to hit 33 mpg.

-Ecoboost engines seem to get worse fuel economy in City driving or during periods of acceleration likely due to being in boost more often. However, according to the data it seems Ecoboost engines shine on the highway where their smaller displacement or fewer cylinders allow them to sip less fuel than a larger NA engine with similar power.

-Ford's Ecoboost engines do in fact increase fuel economy over NA engines in the same vehicle. While the Edge V6 did offer AWD in the tests, the trade-off is usually 1-2 mpg or so.

-CR's testing of the previous Fusion vs. the new one is very important here. While radically redesigned, the Fusion's transmission is a carry-over and the car has maintained similar weight. CR was able to hit 37 mpg on the hwy with the new Fusion, besting EPA estimates. The previous model with the 2.5 was only able to hit 33 mpg.

-Ecoboost engines seem to get worse fuel economy in City driving or during periods of acceleration likely due to being in boost more often. However, according to the data it seems Ecoboost engines shine on the highway where their smaller displacement or fewer cylinders allow them to sip less fuel than a larger NA engine with similar power.

I wonder how it is out west or in mountainous regions where we can regularly have to climb higher elevations of 1,000ft or more to get to and from work. The boost would have to click on for some of that, making it more of a "city mpg" type experience I would think.
________________________________

-Ford's Ecoboost engines do in fact increase fuel economy over NA engines in the same vehicle. While the Edge V6 did offer AWD in the tests, the trade-off is usually 1-2 mpg or so.

-CR's testing of the previous Fusion vs. the new one is very important here. While radically redesigned, the Fusion's transmission is a carry-over and the car has maintained similar weight. CR was able to hit 37 mpg on the hwy with the new Fusion, besting EPA estimates. The previous model with the 2.5 was only able to hit 33 mpg.

-Ecoboost engines seem to get worse fuel economy in City driving or during periods of acceleration likely due to being in boost more often. However, according to the data it seems Ecoboost engines shine on the highway where their smaller displacement or fewer cylinders allow them to sip less fuel than a larger NA engine with similar power.

Zoomin:I wonder how it is out west or in mountainous regions where we can regularly have to climb higher elevations of 1,000ft or more to get to and from work. The boost would have to click on for some of that, making it more of a "city mpg" type experience I would think.

The trade-off would be similar to a NA engine. At higher levels, NA engines lose power requiring you to stomp on the gas to keep up speed. Fuel economy suffers.

Ecoboost engines also suffer in fuel economy by entering boost much more often, but you don't lose nearly as much power.

-Ford's Ecoboost engines do in fact increase fuel economy over NA engines in the same vehicle. While the Edge V6 did offer AWD in the tests, the trade-off is usually 1-2 mpg or so.

-CR's testing of the previous Fusion vs. the new one is very important here. While radically redesigned, the Fusion's transmission is a carry-over and the car has maintained similar weight. CR was able to hit 37 mpg on the hwy with the new Fusion, besting EPA estimates. The previous model with the 2.5 was only able to hit 33 mpg.

-Ecoboost engines seem to get worse fuel economy in City driving or during periods of acceleration likely due to being in boost more often. However, according to the data it seems Ecoboost engines shine on the highway where their smaller displacement or fewer cylinders allow them to sip less fuel than a larger NA engine with similar power.

well the wieght may very well be similar for the fusion, but is the gearing the same? What about the drag of the vehicle? There's alot of things that can contribute to a cars fuel economy. I am sure there was alot done above/under the hood of the fusion to get its MPG where its at now.

You can toss the edge results because awd usually always have a pretty signifigant effect on mpg depending who makes it. That turbo would have been hauling more wieight if it were awd and I wouldn't be surprised if it did worse than the v6 in that case. awd usually has about 2-4 mpg effect depending on the systems efficiency and wieght. fwd vs awd will never be apples and appples comparison.
________________"Speed is cheap in my opinion. It's everything else that gives a car it's value(RoTiCaFo)."